Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    The very fact that there is escalation is his attempts to mutilate, through to Kelly, demonstrates that he did not understand, but was learning, how to mutilate.

    So from the get-go, the man learning to mutilate does not resemble the learned man who can amputate, dismember and eviscerate.

    Torso man would have known what to expect in these bone obstructions from experience, yet even JtR finds himself trying to do the same thing again, on another victim without success.

    What this does is explain all the wounds JtR inflicted. There is a combination of successful attempts to mutilate some part around which are unsuccessful attempts to mutilate some parts. This is going all the way back to Nichols.

    JtR is like a kid probing and playing around trying to find what he wants.

    Torsoman didn't have to play. Should Torsoman have been the mutilator, the mutilations would be site-directed, efficiently completed and not the jagged, semi-frenzied, smash and grab, that is even evident in Kelly in part.

    Torsoman would have produced a completely different set of injuries in the C5 if he intended mutilation.
    Last edited by Batman; 12-05-2018, 01:23 PM.
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      academic backing, academic shbacking. use your common sense. what? cant think for yourself?
      Thinking for yourself does not preclude you from being able to reference others. In fact, you do reference others, even here from this board.

      You took the same stand as FM on here by dismissing the post and then trying to poo-poo it with emotional content. That is why I told you to think for yourself because all you did was copy what FM did. Like reading a cloned response almost.

      Anyway, more importantly, I see academic backing is no longer important to you. If that's the case do you also dismiss the academic backing brought to the table for other suspects and claims relating to this case?
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Batman View Post
        Thinking for yourself does not preclude you from being able to reference others. In fact, you do reference others, even here from this board.

        You took the same stand as FM on here by dismissing the post and then trying to poo-poo it with emotional content. That is why I told you to think for yourself because all you did was copy what FM did. Like reading a cloned response almost.

        Anyway, more importantly, I see academic backing is no longer important to you. If that's the case do you also dismiss the academic backing brought to the table for other suspects and claims relating to this case?
        I didn't copy anyone I don't even know who your referring to-whos FM???
        so if your going to insult someone at least get it straight what your insulting them about-so I was "thinking for myself"- it was you who were wrong and made a faulty assumption.

        If that's the case do you also dismiss the academic backing brought to the table for other suspects and claims relating to this case?

        nope. only if I don't agree with it and or it lacks common sense.


        Also, one needs to take with a grain of salt so called experts views sometimes. like profiling for example.

        I would venture that the average casebooker knows more about the case than some of these so called experts.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #94
          My statement at the top of this page is pretty much the same thing as the one you dismissed so if you want to try and answer that one you can. If not, that's up to you.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Batman View Post
            I am able to find a peer-reviewed journal article that include mention of JtR's failure in these areas because even since the start of this thread I have discovered no less than 4 professionals, who have had this position reviewed by peers and published in academic journals.

            Which is why I know positions to the opposite don't have the same academic backing.
            Genuinely interested in reading those four.
            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by DJA View Post
              Genuinely interested in reading those four.
              I found this link to the peer-reviewed article. It is a PDF. The four writers are at the top of the article.

              P.16 is on amputation attempts that failed and other mutilations efforts that failed in the last paragraph.

              The paper ruled out a torso murder connection based on M.O and signature analysis.

              As a note, when Dr. Philips on Chapman said " There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck.", what Philips is noting here is that along with notches on the bone from the knife, there is the additional evidence of an attempt to separate the bones of the neck.

              He doesn't necessarily say this is the result of those notches or the knife injuries. Whatever was done, it was in addition to what was needed to kill her. Anyway, bone neck separation is an attempt at decapitation especially given the rest of her neck was cut through.
              Bona fide canonical and then some.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Batman View Post
                I found this link to the peer-reviewed article. It is a PDF. The four writers are at the top of the article.

                P.16 is on amputation attempts that failed and other mutilations efforts that failed in the last paragraph.

                The paper ruled out a torso murder connection based on M.O and signature analysis.

                As a note, when Dr. Philips on Chapman said " There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck.", what Philips is noting here is that along with notches on the bone from the knife, there is the additional evidence of an attempt to separate the bones of the neck.

                He doesn't necessarily say this is the result of those notches or the knife injuries. Whatever was done, it was in addition to what was needed to kill her. Anyway, bone neck separation is an attempt at decapitation especially given the rest of her neck was cut through.
                Thanks for that. Downloaded and will have a good read when I have the time.

                I agree about Chapman's attempted decapitation.
                Crikey,who would have guessed she had TB in her brain!

                Authors have taken a liberty with Nichols.
                Compare the remaining newspaper transcript of the inquest.
                Jane Coram had an excellent depiction of her injuries,maybe someone still has it and shares.

                These experts have failed to make any connection between Stride's bottom lip and the cachous.

                Haven't got any further yet.
                Not really interested anymore in the superfluous ie outside of the CV5.
                Spent a lot of time on that nine years ago.

                Gouldstone Street
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Batman View Post
                  I found this link to the peer-reviewed article. It is a PDF. The four writers are at the top of the article.

                  P.16 is on amputation attempts that failed and other mutilations efforts that failed in the last paragraph.

                  The paper ruled out a torso murder connection based on M.O and signature analysis.

                  As a note, when Dr. Philips on Chapman said " There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck.", what Philips is noting here is that along with notches on the bone from the knife, there is the additional evidence of an attempt to separate the bones of the neck.

                  He doesn't necessarily say this is the result of those notches or the knife injuries. Whatever was done, it was in addition to what was needed to kill her. Anyway, bone neck separation is an attempt at decapitation especially given the rest of her neck was cut through.
                  Wow.

                  That is some of the most pathetic junk that I have read.

                  My jaw just dropped at the "information" on Chapman.

                  They have confused the Nichols discovery with the Chapman case and then further inject the Nichols story as Chapman's.

                  Buggered if I know how Keppell got his PhD,if that is his level of research.

                  Mind numbing drivel.

                  Peer reviewed,by who?
                  Last edited by DJA; 12-07-2018, 03:36 PM.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by DJA View Post
                    Wow.

                    That is some of the most pathetic junk that I have read.

                    My jaw just dropped at the "information" on Chapman.

                    They have confused the Nichols discovery with the Chapman case and then further inject the Nichols story as Chapman's.

                    Buggered if I know how Keppell got his PhD,if that is his level of research.

                    Mind numbing drivel.

                    Peer reviewed,by who?
                    Quote the part.

                    It tells you who peer reviewed it.

                    Now's your big chance to publish your rebuttal if it's wrong.
                    Bona fide canonical and then some.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                      Quote the part.

                      It tells you who peer reviewed it.

                      Now's your big chance to publish your rebuttal if it's wrong.

                      Details of Annie Chapman case.

                      Paragraphs 1 and 5.

                      As previously mentioned.
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                        Details of Annie Chapman case.

                        Paragraphs 1 and 5.

                        As previously mentioned.
                        The article covers Nichols before Chapman. For Chapman all the details are there.

                        The paper says it's only using police reports and inquest material. So maybe there was a historical confusion they are referencing.
                        Bona fide canonical and then some.

                        Comment


                        • For God's sake read the thing.

                          Then read the real inquest material.

                          No wonder you have no idea what you are talking about when you use drivel like this as foundation for your ideas.
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                            For God's sake read the thing.

                            Then read the real inquest material.

                            No wonder you have no idea what you are talking about when you use drivel like this as foundation for your ideas.
                            I don't have a suspect dog in this race like you do.

                            These are not my ideas if someone else published them.

                            Anyway you are trying to save your views on another thread and completely ignored the medical facts pointing to organ mutilation which contradicts your view they were medical experiments!

                            This thread is about JtRs failed attempts, MO and signature. Which you haven't addressed at all.
                            Bona fide canonical and then some.

                            Comment


                            • Eddowes head was nearly taken off. Warning graphic.

                              Also, he didn't manage to take off her whole nose. He hit bone at her bridge. Examiner even notes the nasal bone was hit. He tried to cut from the nasals themselves where the wings meet the face. In the end, he could only remove the tip.

                              Her nose looks in a bit better condition in that photo than I expected.
                              Bona fide canonical and then some.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                                I don't have a suspect dog in this race like you do.

                                These are not my ideas if someone else published them.

                                Anyway you are trying to save your views on another thread and completely ignored the medical facts pointing to organ mutilation which contradicts your view they were medical experiments!

                                This thread is about JtRs failed attempts, MO and signature. Which you haven't addressed at all.
                                I do not hold a view that any of the CV5 murders were medical experiments.
                                Never have.
                                I believe JtR was being blackmailed by 4 of his patients who in turn were being manipulated by Mary Kelly out of revenge.
                                Chapman's head and Eddowes' kidney would have been of particular interest to him in regards to research,however that was not motivation for the murders.

                                That,to me,defines his MO and signature.
                                I have actually worked with a Criminologist.

                                I do agree that JtR attempted to take Chapman's head off.

                                Chapman was not found murdered in Buck's Row.
                                She did not reside at 18 Thrawl Street.

                                Once you realise how flawed that is,you might start to consult reliable sources.

                                Those four experts would fail a year 6 exam on that effort.

                                All the best,

                                Dave.
                                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X